#be included. I recognise that. I am not blameless

[shiraishi--kanade]

I remember hearing a video essayist for a different fandom saying a lot of people are having wild takes on the media in question because it's becoming more common to get information about the books second-hand than to actually read the books. And I think something like this happened with pjsk. Except worse because we don't even have video essays we have tiktoks. And that's why We're Like This

[fruityyamenrunner]

living for other people and living for yourself are part of the same thing. you are an other person. other people are also a "myself". there is not a choice you can make between yourself and the world. there is no "selfishness dial". "selfishness" is not a real interval.

you are not trading off amounts of money, you are a person taking actions in relation to everyone else in the world, for which the money is a fetish which only captures a part of what is happening. *money transfers* can be described with the real line, but virtue and vice cannot.

the reduction to the absurd, and therefore madness, that happens when you try to describe virtue and vice as a "selfishness dial" is a sign that it was already madness to begin to treat virtue like this: the madness that results from the system was built into it from the start, and so you should not do that.

if i wanted to spiritually abuse someone i would also make them feel that they were separate from the whole world, that they were worthless, and that their only way to avoid disappearing up their own anus into nothing was to buy into a scheme i drew on the back of a napkin (in the rich software engineer sex cult club) made out of insulting accusations and paranoid fantasies which i have labelled "a picture of the world".

you're making a lot of more than two assumptions, including some along the lines of the above that are harder to state because, well, they're abuse-type assumptions, and those kinds of assumptions are the kind that if you could simply coolly state them as premises they wouldn't be very effective as abuse.

calling it "locality bias" means you are recognising that the "biased" view is taking some kind of function that outputs "selfishness dial" type values and the function has a metric d(x,y_n) over some sort of space F in it somewhere, where x is your location in F and y_n is the location in F of the supplicant n you are considering from your lonely position as the Self Who Is Not Like The Others, and you don't like how it's not generally true that d(x,y_0) = d(x,y_1) so you decide that the function should be replaced with a metric where it is always the case, well then what does this look like?

i suppose it doesn't *have* to be the case that x = y_n for all n, i.e. that all places are the same place, it *could* be that the y_n are distributed somewhere in a sphere over F around you, and you are the privileged point. this has obvious problems like how do you nicely transform between people, like if instead of considering you, i think about myself for a change (as a treat) and, naturally, see myself as surrounded by a sphere in which you, like everyone else, are at distance d(x,y_n) then this is fine because we can agree, but as soon as a third person comes in we have problems because now we start having to triangulate our respective locations in the sphere so that we can all maintain the only distance it is possible to be... i think F has to be strange for it to work, but I am not enough of a geometer to say and isn't it fucked to see all these supplicants, as you add them to your big round court, trying to keep a fixed distance away from one another to maintain their privileged position? didn't we have enough of this during the pandemic? don't you *want* anyone to be close to anyone?

what differentiates EA mostly is that they are scrupulous in attempting to write down their virtues so they can see how blameless and justified they are. i think positive impacts on this sort of scale, or greater, are quite common, but the desire to be justified by writing it down in golden letters is relatively uncommon, and not entirely praiseworthy. certainly the people administering the medicine, moving it around the world, synthesising the first doxycycline molecules, scaling up production, marketing it etc. in the 1960s etc deserve some credit which we must, regretfully, deduct from the Californians' Heavenly Pharisaic Bank Account.

it's probably good that Peter Singer got a bunch of software engineers to donate a portion of their excess wealth to Africa rather than more light-up keyboards. But like... "guy with extra money who doesn't have any particular ties and just wants to see his dollar go as far as possible" is not necessarily the typical small-time philanthropist! Many people have causes they care about in the same way they have people they care about, and while "don't donate to this charity because it's a scam or doesn't spend that much of its money on helping people" is useful information to them, "don't donate to this charity because you'll save more lives buying mosquito nets" is not any more useful to them than "be friends with different people" would be. Maybe they're donating to ALS research or the Audobon society or a political campaign for a reason other than "to save the most human lives as possible" and the difference in values and what they're hoping to accomplish is more of a point of departure than the idea that they're somehow "misinformed" about what the best charities to donate to are!

[mental-space-x]

Conversations with a narcassist If asked, most people couldn’t give an explanation or an example of a narcassist but if you’ve experienced one, the pattern is universal. If you google narcassism now you��ll find lists of character traits including: Monopolising a conversation (I.e not listening or taking in what the other is saying); Lack of empathy Superiority complex Lack of responsibility – usually manifesting in blaming or deflecting attention A fixation on appearance – when my abuser was arrested, the first thing he did was comb his hair! Need for attention and fear of abandonment Any of this sound familiar? If you’ve read my previous posts you will recognise some traits here. The lack of empathy with him dismissing everything I said, his monopolising the conversation by ignoring me, his fear of abandonment and superiority issues – he believes he is entitled to do what he wants with and to me because he is entirely blameless in his twisted world. In his mind he has treated me well and I have betrayed him by wanting to leave, he does not accept that belittling, ignoring, stalking, and harrassment are not acceptable forms of behaviour. In fact he defined coercive and controlling behaviour when he came to my work place and stated – and I quote ‘this will not stop until she does as she’s told’. I am sharing this here because there is very little more dangerous in this world than a narcassist, they are charming on the outside and can moderate their behaviour in front of others to ensure it is only ever you and him that experience the abuse, he can charm his way with officials and have them believing you are the one that needs help. To escape from a narcassist takes care and planning, if you can pack up and disappear from his life overnight, leaving no trace you’re incredibly lucky. However, like the rest of us, and in my case in particular where my narcassist and I are stuck in a remote location together with no police presence on the island, I could not escape... To read more, follow the link below: https://themindsearcher.wordpress.com/2022/12/15/conversations-with-a-narcassist/?preview=true #narcassist #narcassism #domesticabuse #mentalhealth https://www.instagram.com/p/CmL2N6GIYeO/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[abandondeceit]

Extinction Rebellion Values

Extinction Rebellion Values

We have a shared vision of change: Creating a world that is fit for generations to come.

It can be so easy to express visions, but are they focused?

I have worn glasses since I was about 12 years old. With my glasses I can see crisply but without them the world is a fuzzy blurry place. As I have grown older my vision has changed. Aged 12 all I needed was a basic pair of 'NHS' specs; they did the job and my eyesight was perfectly good. Now I am 57 years old and I have two pairs, and each of those pairs has at various focal zones (varifocals). I wear one pair exclusively for screen work, and the other pair for everything else, including driving and watching TV. In effect, I have five pairs of specs now. With age comes great focus.

Vision is not fixed, and even one person's vision can change with the years. But when we have all kinds of ways to help us focus the vision we can begin to see things from all kinds of points of view. Sharing vision doesn't mean we all see the same thing the same way. Some things only others can get to grips with. Some things require a head to be tilted. Sometimes a telephoto is better than a fish eye.

Looking out for the future is the only thing that matters with the environment. We can all look at the vision differently, but the vanishing point, where the parallel lines join, is approaching fast.

We set our mission on what is necessary

I never leave home without my door keys or phone. I rarely use my phone to call someone, but I often use it to pay for food, and to register my Tesco or Nectar points. If I am lost I can use the map. It tells me the time and if I find myself with a bit of a gap in my day I can read a good book.

I use my keys to unlock my door.

What do you consider to be necessary? We'll never fully agree. We just know that having somewhere to live is one of life's basics. It's there at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Food, shelter and warmth. So many don't quite get to see that. If pushed, of course they will. Everyone sees the need for shelter and food, but it's not always up there in our mind, right at the front, because most of us have made a good effort at securing a stable life, and so many think that the environment is a given, that we will always be able to get by.

Thankfully, it doesn't take everyone altogether at the same time to make others think differently. It may only take 1 in 20 or fewer. I consider myself one of the 5%.

 We need a regenerative culture

Elephants are dreadful vandals. Environmental destroyers with few equals among mammals. Locusts too, not mammals, but even more destructive.  In fact, plenty of animals are destroyers of quite mammoth (sorry) proportions. Squirrels, beavers, wildebeest… when you stop to look about you, all kinds of animals leave a very striking mark on their ecosystem, but elephants are probably the most like us. They eat what they need, they trample foliage, they strip the bark from trees that then die. And then they move on. The saving grace for elephants is that they have somewhere to move on to (let’s leave the problem of human destroying their habitat for now). Our problem is that we have nowhere to go. Instead, we have to find a way to bring balance into our ecosystem that gives time to regenerate. Health, efficient, adaptable. That's only the start. With all these comes constant vigilance. It is so easy to destroy, but so hard to rebuild.

And so, we need to:

Openly challenge ourselves and this toxic system.

'Toxin' comes from a classical Greek word meaning bow and arrow. Poisoned arrows are doubly dangerous. Not only do they pierce the flesh but they bring a hidden threat. Poisons and toxins are unseen. That's a the big problem. We only see them when they have an effect on us, by which time it's almost too late. The poison arrow has already been released and is now embedded in our shoulder. It is not the pain of the arrow that matters: that will heal. The big problem is the hidden nature of the toxin. What is the antidote? Is there one?

Even stepping out from the safety of our shields puts us in the firing line. We are all affected, and even when we are not directly pierced we know that all those around us may have begun falling in poisoned agony. Our first challenge is to find and destroy the poisoned arrows.

We can't sit tight and hope it all gets better. We need to stop the arrows being fired.

We value reflecting and learning

Old men find it tricky to learn new tricks. I was born in 1962. Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was published when I was less than six months old. It wasn't the very first, but it was one of the most influential environmental books of the past 100 years. But we were slow to respond. I began working in ecological research in 1984. Even then the jury was still out. Greta Thunberg was born after the millennium. I could be her grandfather but she has taught me one thing at least: giving up isn't an option. It seems daunting and desperate, but we need to find a way to learn from each other. We need to learn what needs to be done, how to do it and why we can't be bothered. A cycle of learning, and planning for more action will be our duty for centuries to come. Learning from other movements and contexts as well our own experiences. We have done nothing for over a half-century since we became aware of the problem. I'm never too old to learn.

We welcome everyone and every part of everyone

All are welcome in all places. But what if your place is uninhabitable? Welcome to mine. Working actively to create safer and more accessible spaces is easily said. How do we get there? Our world is tribal. Humans are tribal. It doesn't take much to compel us to resist aliens. How do we welcome those we find difficult? How do we live with ourselves when we recognise our own disastrous effect on the planet? When we drive rather than walk, or consume rather than conserve? Turn first to ourselves, and then we can turn to others: they are welcome in our lvies and we in theirs because, really, without this there is nothing to love for.

When we disagree over the ways to act, what then? Pause, listen, reflect, discuss and act. Then do it all again, altogether now… we all have a perspective and we all have to see the other's point too.

We actively mitigate for power

Think about plumbing. Pipes filled with water. Controlled by taps. Nobody wants a flood.

When did you last give away any of your power? It's hard work, isn't it? Don't deny it. Nobody likes to give away power. We love to show how it can be shared, but so often on our terms. How do we give away power? I am a white middle-aged educated man. I have all the power. I need to constantly remind myself that this is so because I often am frustrated at what I think is powerlessness. I want to destroy the hierarchies. But I don't ever actually do it. "Breaking down hierarchies of power for more equitable participation" sounds like such a breeze. So, go on then: breeze in and break down a hierarchy. You know what makes hierarchies of power so powerful? Their power.

Turn the taps on and drain the power. Into what? Where will it go without causing all kinds of dampness and decay? We all have to gather it in small vessels, but then what do we do with it? There is no power anymore, so how can we get anything done? Let's not be frightened of power, but let's learn to use it relationally and not keep it all to ourselves. You'd give water to a thirsty woman? Why jot give her power?

We avoid blaming and shaming

Typical. It's not fair. Just when we have a means to challenge the problems and question those who caused them, we have to stop blaming. Says who?

We live in a toxic system, but no one individual is to blame. Blame is what reinforces the hierarchies because it imposes a distinction. And just as with power: it's very difficult to tackle. It's where we go first when we feel victimised. It's where we go when we see something we don't agree with. We blame before we accept. Human nature, once again. Best, then, to blame ourselves first and then include everyone else as we go along. Yes: we are all in this together, but is that the same as blame, or is it a humility that we always struggle with, both to show to others and to see in others? I could write a book, Humility and how I achieved it, but I'm guessing I'd never be able to publicise it.

We should be ashamed, collectively. When we all accept it, blame and shame transform into  responsibilities. We can only do this if we accept all of our responsibilities.

We are a non-violent network

Using non-violent strategy and tactics is the most effective way to bring change.

Really? We need to state this at all! Yup. It's so easy when seeking power to express the power we seek to take. If we turn on all the taps at once, we'll be drenched within moments and nothing can be done since we will all be trying to turn the taps off. But if we hold on to our values, violence cannot even be considered. If everyone is equally valued, and all of everyone, if we all want to find ways to regenerate and balance our world, if the power is controlled, there can be no violence, surely? I wish.

We need to keep removing the poisoned arrows from our quivers. We need to keep on reflecting and learning from each of us. We need to pause and reflect on why others do what they do. It ain't easy being rebellious.

We are based on autonomy and decentralisation

Who are we? I am a single human. But we collectively create the structures we need to challenge power. Who is in charge of the taps? Who will resist our desire to decentralise? How do we cope with their desire to keep a grip on the taps? Not by ganging up, but by encountering them on their ground. Decentralisation is not anarchy. It is a summation of these values of relational power and blamelessness. Decentralisation only works when there is a culture of welcome and enthusiasm for others.